The Kraken

Sir Keith is a knight of the realm and seemingly an absolutely top swordsman. 😎

26 minutes ago, whelk said:

Don’t worry, in a few years time you can vote your beloved Tories back in to stabilise it all

It's so hilariously transparent 😄

Factless Alfie

I didn't watch the game either and I definitely think it's season over.

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

I did that and we aren’t. I’m in row 34, son 29, missus 25. I rang them to complain about having 12 year old on his own for a 10 hour flight and they said from 12 upwards no guarantee to sit with a parent. 
 

I am with you and usually refuse to pay hidden extras which is my point to them, you expect it with Ryanair for short flights, not long haul travelling as family on what is already an expensive holiday 

Even with Ryanair on short haul you can pay as low as £2 or £3 per person for a seat. The most expensive I’ve seen from them is £19 and that’s for front row seats. I fly with Ryanair a lot as they go from Bournemouth and always pay for a seat, usually no more than £5 or £6. The prices you’re being asked to stump up are absolute daylight robbery, scandalous.

55 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Honestly, I'd vote for that manifesto now.

Take Corbyn the personality out of the question and read his manifesto, a lot of the policies within it were very attractive. However it quickly became apparent that, while there were plenty of good ideas (and some bad ones), the chances of them actually coming to being were questionable. Basically one couldn’t be sure at all if the finances stacked up. Throw in Corbyn the man, popular to some but a massive turn off to a large majority of others. Then add in his blundering performances such as on Andrew Neill where he got absolutely eviscerated over finance, particularly how he would fund WASPI (wasn’t in the manifesto, wasn’t costed in budgets, but Corbyn said he’d find the money).  The manifesto wasn’t the main problem, it was the ability to deliver it than undid him for many.

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

"Usually", not always!

It was my intention to be informal and to use that tone. 

Sense of humour bypass confirmed.

2 hours ago, CB Fry said:

I've heard the Rangers players have just come back from a day in an Escape Room rounded off with a Chippy Tea.

Fish supper up there isn’t it?

9 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Easy to see who skipped English at school on this forum. 

Grammar Notes:

• Fragment: This is a sentence fragment—it lacks a subject and a verb. Grammatically complete sentences usually need both.

• Tone: It’s informal and could come off as sarcastic or mocking, which may or may not be your intention.

Suggested Revision (Grammatically Correct):

It's easy to see who skipped English class in school on this forum.

Optional Softer Alternative (if you want less bite):

It seems like some people on this forum might have missed a few English classes.

3 minutes ago, stknowle said:

Comfortably the worst set of penalties I have ever seen at any level of football.

The BBC live ticker seems to think so too.

Personally I thought it was brilliant entertainment. More of that please!

This is absolutely hilarious. Brilliant stuff!

The keeper smashes it out of the stadium 🤣

Aside from the top bins one, these penalties have been absolutely woeful.

Our keeper seems like an absolute liability. Just doesn’t seem to have any sort of awareness of where she is.

Fairly sure the controller on the left is for a PlayStation and the controller on the right is for a Nintendo.

10 minutes ago, Turkish said:

IIRC he first claimed it was a cup game, then a friendly, then when absolutely no record anywhere of the game could be found he said it was a behind closed doors friendly 😂😂

He came out some absolute bullshit over the years 

I believe that it immediately came out that Celtic did actually played a game on the very same day that he said he was there, and that game was indeed against Inverness. But the lineup was published online and Hooiveld wasn’t in it. After that Bullshit Pat claimed that the game that he attended was actually a behind doors friendly that he had been especially invited to, a Celtic XI vs an Inverness XI (coincidentally the same day as the other game was played), and Hooiveld did indeed play, give away a penalty, score an own goal and get sent off. Such a silly man.

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

C’mon been a while since the Hopkins Robinson routine

It had been a nice while, to be fair.

3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Thats the fella, cheers. There were at least a couple more as well and Hooliveld was very much a last minute move. He turned out alright in the championship despite and infamous scouting report from a poster who TUI who claimed he had seen him play for Celtic and had scored an own goal, given away a penalty and got sent off in a match for Celtic, on further investigation it turned out it was a completely made up 😂😂

Patred 🤣 the infamous Inverness game that was immediately exposed as complete bullshit but the silly sod carried on his lie for years. Forgot about him, what a sausage.  

42 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

There is an awful lot of sensible advice on here. I use HL and although their fees are annoyingly high they do have a good website and app. They are however prone to push certain funds at the expense of others. Their "Wealth Shortlist funds" are often not the best performers in their sector. Maybe they earn better commission on their Wealth funds. 

It is essential to keep an eye on how your investments are performing. Bad performers need to be ditched fast. You always get told that past performance is no guarantee of future performance but in the same way that you know that Liverpool will always be near the top of the PL, so you find that the better fund managers tend to get consistently the best results. 

 

 

Definitely. I learned the hard way via the Woodford fund collapse (that HL backed to the hilt) that their recommendations are to be taken with a massive pinch of salt.  Thankfully I’ve just had a small financial return on all that unsavoury business via a settled court case, but I still took a decent percentage haircut on the whole thing (thankfully it wasn’t a big amount for me overall). So, yeah, HL have their own interests in mind.

As you said, there is a wealth of information out there and many many reviews of managed funds. And again as you say, past performance is no guarantee of anything, but certain fund managers and companies tend to build themselves something of a reputation. I now stick with established companies with known entities behind them, and a lower risk profile. 

Maybe egg is right, maybe an IFA could get me better returns, but I’m not necessarily sure. In fact I actually sat with a very good friend of my folks in the past few months who has been a financial adviser most of his life and co owns a company with around 50 staff. I showed him my HL and said I wouldn’t be averse to moving to him if there was a compelling case to do so, he was very honest and said he couldn’t guarantee it and my investments looks pretty sensible.

10 minutes ago, egg said:

I'd caution against suggesting to someone to pick a managed fund. I've got loads of managed funds, and had others which I've ditched. The performance between them is so variable it's ridiculous. I spread my risk, and research via Trustnet and others, but I've got it wrong big time.

I don't think people can safely pick between managed funds which may be, for example, US focused as against UK focused, 20% bonds or more, or all stock. It's an absolute minefield and a decent IFA will have access to decent people to pick the managed funds, and change when necessary. 

It’s a fair comment, but Turkish sounds like he’s got a couple of mates who know what they’re doing so he can get some good advice from them.

The nature of funds is that they’re very up and down. The best IFA isn’t going to make zero mistakes, or pick the best funds all the time. Sure, they’ll avoid the big mistakes that an amateur will, but no guarantees of future performance.

Finance is a personal thing, so you’re right to point out that me saying that what is good for me should be good for someone else is not a global statement to make. Fair point. But Turkish seems to be along that path of thinking already, so maybe just a bit if positive reinforcement 😉

6 minutes ago, egg said:

If you've got a decent pot, I'd suggest finding a recommended IFA and leaving them to it - it shouldn't cost much if any more than the HL platform fees. 

It depends what the IFA does with the money.  If, as many do, they’re just putting it into a managed fund for you and charging 1.5% for the privilege, it’s not offering great value over self investing. There’s more of a risk by doing it yourself, I suppose, but as long as you’re using well recognised managed funds, the risk is minimised. And there’s no guarantees that the funds the IFA picks for you are going to be the best out there.  So long as you don’t mind keeping a track on your funds, how they’re doing, and switching up if underperforming, I think HL is the way to go personally.

Admittedly I haven’t used an IFA for some time now, but when I did all they did was put my cash into managed funds and I got a review every year. Didn’t offer anything that I couldn’t do myself, and take the risk out of it by opting for well reviewed and backed funds.

The I did get fucked over by the Woodford fund debacle mind. So swings and roundabouts. But I have no qualms whatsoever of my annual returns over the past decade or more.

14 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Thanks that’s what I’m planning to do, split the pension across 6 or so different funds and leave it long term. I’ve had this money sitting there for ages so makes sense to try and use it a bit more wisely. If/when I leave my current job I’ll do the same with that and stick that in the same SIPP too. 

I find it really easy to have all mine in the same place. And to feel like I’m in control of what’s happening. With managed funds you’re taking a good amount of risk out of it. It may well be that your previous investments are doing ok. But I found with one from my old work that the management fee per annum was higher than what I’d have been paying via HL and the fund(s) and the performance had been pretty shoddy, so it was well worth my while moving.

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

Been recomended Hargreaves Lansdown, i've got a decent amount to put in and apparently with them you can chose your own investments, a mate of mine joined their SIPP two months ago and has made about 8% so far.

I did this with my pensions quite a few years ago. I use HL for my SIPPs and my ISAs. HL are very good but their platform fees are a bit higher than other competitors so it’s worth shopping around.  The front end is super simple though. Im fairly risk averse and usually have 5 or 6 managed funds on the go at any time, I review them fairly often and end up switching if a particular one is underperforming.

I wouldn’t pay too much attention to performance in the past two months. Depends what type of funds you’re in (uk only, Europe, USA, worldwide) but when Trump went tariff happy a few months ago my funds lost about 20% within a week. I’ve just about clawed that back by now. So if you looked at a two month performance chart you’d say my funds have gone up 15%-20%, but in reality the market has just reset itself somewhat.

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

 

It’s happened twice actually.
 

The Swiss team lost 7-1 to an U15 team and the USA team when they were world champions lost to an U15 boys team

https://www.sportbible.com/football/football-news/switzerland-alisha-lehmann-women-euros-boys-u15-team-974768-20250625

https://www.si.com/soccer/2023/11/10/carli-lloyd-confirms-uswnt-once-lost-team-15-year-old-boys
 

so not utter bollocks pal. 

The second link points out the very obvious fact that 15 year olds playing for an academy are likely to be stronger and faster than the women’s side. A very basic comparison is sprinting, the times that top women in the world set in the 100m these days is comparable with those set by some 14 year olds and quite a few 15 year old boys.  Top women footballers *may* have a skill advantage but the speed and power disadvantage will outweigh that quickly. So it’s not really a controversial statement to point it out, it’s just biology.

As the interview shows, the USA player says herself: “Haha. They should beat us. Bigger, stronger, faster! Boys always gave us a run for our money! It was great prep.”

7 minutes ago, egg said:

You're not making a whole lot of sense on this. 

This. It’s a bit of a reach, unless you want it to be.